Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[J. Landman Gay]

On 9/10/03 3:03 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate
> public domain.

After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It seems to 
me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't require any 
special handling, allows anyone to do anything without legal 
entanglments, and is just generally easier to manage. So I vote for 
public domain.

> SourceGorge doesn't deem common FTP to be worthy, requiring CVS. Ugh.
> Anyone know a good CVS client for OS X?

I had never been to SourceForge, so I took a look yesterday. I think the 
lack of ftp access is a big drawback, and I think that if we are 
required to find a CVS client (which may not even exist for OS X users, 
I don't know) and get everything set up with the requirements CVS 
expects (public keys, encryption, whatever) that we will discourage 
people from participating. It will be too much work for anyone except 
those who are especially committed to the project, mostly because of the 
effort it takes before one can even access the group. I think we want to 
encourage casual participation, whether that means just uploading a 
contribution on the spur of the moment or downloading a file on a whim. 
Easy is good. Open is good.

Yahoo Groups is a convenient, accessible, free, and neutral option. 
People can upload files and anyone can get them. It provides a place for 
discussion or mailing lists if we want them, but doesn't require we use 
those features. It allows easy transfer of moderatorship from one person 
to another if the current Poobah decides to hand the reins to someone 
else. So what about Yahoo?

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com